On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:42:22 -0400 Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/11 12:16 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:10:24 -0400 Adam Jackson<a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> It still seems entirely magical and probably wrong in some situations. > >> And I'm thrilled to see that PPT is functionally different from CPT > >> (seriously, stop doing that) instead of just moving bit definitions > >> around (seriously, stop doing that). But this change is massively > >> better than before. > > > > Without composite sync, FDI needs frame/line sync (the fsync/lsync > > mentioned in the docs), which means extra wires between the CPU and > > PCH. Some boards don't have these and so we need to use composite. > > For the same reason, if FDI B and C are sharing lanes, we need to use > > composite or we won't have enough lines to go around. > > > > I've asked the hardware guys whether using composite on a board that > > supports fsync/lsync is ok generally; if so just defaulting to that > > everywhere should be fine. > > Makes sense. If true this seems worth doing for CPT too. The IBX docs > don't make any mention of composite sync. Supposedly SNB doesn't support this on the CPU side, so I've only put it in the IVB FDI training code. ILK + IBX don't support it at all according to the hw folks. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
